Armchair Generals in the power.

[Redleg]

The thing is though, the important aspects of what you're trying to do - build a nation that stands up for itself, is friendly to you, is at peace with itself, etc. - are just what decolonisation was trying to achieve. There are various models of that process, and the US itself has had varying experiences of doing so - with success in the Philippines, where you gradually wound down over around half a century, and with failure in Vietnam, where the state you left quickly collapsed under pressure. I think the success or otherwise of Iraq can be measured in similar ways. There are factors complicating this, but if one looks at Iraq as a decolonisation exercise, it would at least make things clearer on the political level.

Your forgetting that Nation Building does the same thing as decolonization, both are very similiar in nature but there are differences. Philippines was an attempt at decolonization, since it was previousily a colony of the United States. Vietnam was an attempt at several things, Nation Building being one of them also, because it was not a colony of the United States. South Korea, Japan, and Germany are all exambles of Nation Building. Japan and Germany were nation building based upon occupation of the enemy nation. THe difference is that Japan and Germany were utterly defeated by a total war before the occupation. Iraq was defeated but not in the same scope as either Japan or Germany.

Then your discounting the continued rebellions in the Phillipines that are ongoing to this day in the southern islands.

Your focused on what you believe to be correct, but you haven't demonstrated where decolonization is the correct answer nor have you demonstrated an accurate parrell.

Thinking about it, Malaya may be an example you'll want to look at, as it combined warfighting with nation-building and working alongside a government that was at least nominally independent. However, in that case, the sides were clearly defined, and thus easily dealt with conceptually. Iraq is much, much more complex politically, which makes it even more of a puzzle why there was any desire to immerse oneself in it in the first place.

Malaya does indeed fit into both concepts of decolonization - old british empire colony - and one of nation-building. As for going into Iraq the puzzle is rather easy to figure out. It was spelled out very clearly beginning back in 1991. You can say it was the wrong course of action to pursue based upon the political complexities of that nation, the three deverse groups have been fighting for awhile even under the aspect of being a single nation state. But to claim why there was any desire in the first place is a poor position to take.

What should of happened is a complete and utter destruction of Saddam back in 1991, against the wishes of the United Nations and the collation, or when the upraisings happened in 1992. Instead the United States abandoned some worthwhile allies that might have prevented some of the events that are happening in the world today. But then hind sight is always 20/20